2026 Supreme(SC) 567

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ujjal Bhuyan, Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
Parvathi Nairthi (Dead) And ors. – Appellants
Versus
Laxmi Nairthy (Dead) Through Lrs. And ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6859 of 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12822 of 2013)
Decided On : 21-05-2026

A will is legally valid even if it excludes natural heirs, provided the execution is proved by at least one attesting witness. Testamentary freedom allows for the alteration of natural succession, and suspicious circumstances must be substantial, not speculative. Mutation entries and non-registration do not invalidate a testamentary disposition.

Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3 and 68 - Code of Civil Procedure - Order XIX, Order XX Rule 12 and Order XLI Rule 31 - Succession Act - Section 63 - Testamentary disposition - Proof of execution - Requirement of attesting witness - If a document is required by law to be attested, at least one attesting witness must be called for the purpose of proving execution - Proof of a will does not require mathematical accuracy but the test of satisfaction of a prudent mind - Suspicious circumstances must be real and germane, not merely a fantasy of a doubting mind - Merely excluding natural heirs from the estate is not a suspicious circumstance per se, as the purpose of a will is often to alter the line of succession - Mutation entries are for fiscal purposes and do not confer title - Failure to register a will does not cast doubt upon its genuineness. (Paras 27, 29, 31, 32, 34)

(B) Appellate Procedure - Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC - Compliance - Non-compliance does not render a judgment void if there is substantial compliance and the appellate court has thoroughly analyzed the evidence and reasoning. (Paras 36, 37)

(C) Evidence - Affidavits - Evidentiary value - Filing of an affidavit is not sufficient evidence unless ordered under Order XIX of CPC or the deponent is available for cross-examination. (Para 38)

Facts of the case:
Dispute arose regarding the validity of a will executed by a testator in favor of his sister, which excluded his wife and children. The appellants alleged that the will was fabricated and fraudulent, pointing to the delay in production and the absence of natural heirs in the bequest. The trial court and subsequent appellate courts upheld the validity of the will based on the testimony of an attesting witness and the lack of concrete evidence of forgery submitted by the appellants.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed that the will was executed voluntarily by the testator in a sound state of mind. It held that the exclusion of natural heirs does not inherently invalidate a will and that mutation records do not serve as proof of title. The appellate process followed by the lower courts was deemed sufficient, and the affidavits submitted by the opposing party without opportunity for cross-examination were rejected as unreliable evidence.

Issues: The main issues were the requirements for proving the validity of a will, whether the exclusion of natural heirs creates a suspicious circumstance, the evidentiary value of affidavits, and the requirement for appellate courts to comply with formal procedural rules for judgment writing.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a will is valid if executed per legal mandates, and the burden of proof is on the party alleging fraud. The testator’s right to dispose of property overrides standard succession, and mere exclusion of heirs does not count as a suspicious circumstance unless accompanied by other evidence of incapacity or coercion. Appellate judgements are valid if they substantially review the evidence, regardless of strict adherence to procedural framing of points.

Result: Appeal dismissed.